Lawmakers want FCC to bail out LightSquared with military spectrum

FCC urged to set up a spectrum trade between LightSquared and military.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants the Federal Communications Commission to salvage LightSquared's seemingly doomed plan to build a 4G LTE network by letting the company trade its spectrum for more suitable airwaves controlled by the Department of Defense.

"We ask the FCC to conduct a thorough and thoughtful review of all available spectrum controlled by the Department of Defense (DoD) that could be repurposed or reallocated to meet increased demand," the lawmakers said in a letter sent Tuesday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and reported by the IDG News Service last night. "We also request that the FCC move swiftly to identify other options, including the use of alternate spectrum, for LightSquared's proposed nationwide 4G LTE wireless broadband network.... A spectrum swap is the most resourceful and efficient way to quickly expand broadband access nationwide."

LightSquared filed for bankruptcy protection last month after the FCC halted its plan to build a nationwide cellular network on spectrum that is adjacent to airwaves used by GPS devices. The powerful signals from LightSquared towers would overwhelm the signals GPS devices must receive to provide location services, making the network infeasible, the FCC concluded.

The letter from lawmakers shows that even LightSquared supporters have given up on the company's original plan. The letter was sent by US House Appropriations Committee members, including Reps. Jim Moran (D-VA), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Rodney Alexander (R-LA), and Ander Crenshaw (R-FL). LightSquared is on a tight leash from lenders, who are owed $1.7 billion, according to a NASDAQ article.

While LightSquared's prospects are dim, more spectrum for cellular service is hopefully on the way, as the FCC is trying to free up an additional 500MHz of spectrum for mobile providers over the next decade.

Promoted Comments

Would any trade really be fair? Light Squared wants spectrum for a use that is fundamentally different from the spectrum they currently own. Sure we all want more competition in the Telco sector and this could help, but at what cost? Maybe if the DoD has spectrum laying around that is not used and they actually want to trade, but why is it the FCC's responsibility to research and broker the deal? That is Light Squared's responsibility in my opinion.

Basically we are bailing out another big company because they didn't plan ahead thoroughly enough. I say let them do their own homework or let them fail.

Would any trade really be fair? Light Squared wants spectrum for a use that is fundamentally different from the spectrum they currently own. Sure we all want more competition in the Telco sector and this could help, but at what cost? Maybe if the DoD has spectrum laying around that is not used and they actually want to trade, but why is it the FCC's responsibility to research and broker the deal? That is Light Squared's responsibility in my opinion.

Basically we are bailing out another big company because they didn't plan ahead thoroughly enough. I say let them do their own homework or let them fail.

Yeah, I'm not sure we're seeing the whole picture here. As Petronivs points out it was a failed business plan to start with. Why would we bother with one company here? If any DoD bandwidth were set aside for public/private use I would hope to hell it wouldn't be to just one company. Regional broadband monopolies are bad enough, now the government want's to sponsor a national monopoly? Yes, nation wide 4G and beyond would be an advancement, but I'm thinking there is some money at play here.

Also, why swap good DoD terrestrial bandwidth for bandwidth that couldn't be used terrestrially because of the power restriction disparity caused by operating so close to, and in fact was designated, as a satellite band?

Company buys spectrum for business model A, with limits on it, cheap. Company realizes they can't make a profit on business model A, tries to have limits removed. Company fails to get limits removed. Company sues FCC and complains to lawmakers that FCC is not fair (for not changing the rules to suit them). Company declares bankruptcy. Company get's backers in government to make the FCC give them government reserved spectrum (for you know, defense purposes) which is prime spectrum and very expensive in exchange for garbage spectrum they bought, so they don't go out of business. Failed businessmen get paid huge paychecks, give part to politicians.

Free Market :Company buys spectrum for business model A, with limits on it, cheap. Company realizes they can't make a profit on business model A, tries to have limits removed. Company fails to get limits removed. Company goes bankrupt. Company assets are sold off. New Company buys up components of original company, bids on new spectrum that will work, uses original company's tech to make system work. New Company profits. Successful businessmen make lots of money. Failed businessmen end up working for successful businessmen.

Company buys spectrum for business model A, with limits on it, cheap. Company realizes they can't make a profit on business model A, tries to have limits removed. Company fails to get limits removed. Company sues FCC and complains to lawmakers that FCC is not fair (for not changing the rules to suit them). Company declares bankruptcy. Company get's backers in government to make the FCC give them government reserved spectrum (for you know, defense purposes) which is prime spectrum and very expensive in exchange for garbage spectrum they bought, so they don't go out of business. Failed businessmen get paid huge paychecks, give part to politicians.

Free Market :Company buys spectrum for business model A, with limits on it, cheap. Company realizes they can't make a profit on business model A, tries to have limits removed. Company fails to get limits removed. Company goes bankrupt. Company assets are sold off. New Company buys up components of original company, bids on new spectrum that will work, uses original company's tech to make system work. New Company profits. Successful businessmen make lots of money. Failed businessmen end up working for successful businessmen.

Your version of the free market still includes limits, which means there is a government incorporating limits. If its the same government as there is now and not an idealized one to go along with an idealized free market, then that whole idea just went to shit. You left out paying off politicians somewhere in that free market one.

They did their homework - they figured that when they gave the DNC all that money, they'd get something for it. We're now seeing the fruit of that labor.

to be honest, we all were confused when we saw their plan for the first time in 2010... not with the science (that was settled with first lab tests - this was not going to work) The confusion was: What is the plan? (the Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan /hfro)

What i mean is - put aside all the testing, and just go with what their plan was:"We are going to broadcast a gazillion times louder than GPS next to recievers who are intentionally taking in as much RF as possible to get more accuracy because the neighbors there a week ago were all only about 10 dB higher). This will knock every single GPS receiver off the air at some distance - be it 30m or 27km."

Fine. okay. How the hell is that going to work? Just turn on the towers (for example, three towers within ~600m of the White House...two about 2000m away from Air Force One's hangar, etc.) and knock out all of the GPS along the entire DC Metro area.

Ta da? (insert musical fanfare here)

Was it supposed to be some kind of magic trick? Everyone was going to be super happy they got LSQ-based 4G cell phones, but okay with all of their TomToms and Garmins taking a shit, all the other cell systems would have gone down (all cell phone towers use GPS as primary timing), Baltimore harbor navigation being halted?

Many strenuously argued that the most sucessful way to stop LightSquared was to let them proceed. Me included. Back off from all the arguing and just let them go. And when they turned on the system, yes, airliners would have lost GPS, and no, no one would have been able to use their in-car systems, and yes, all of the networks would have gone down (they use True Time receivers for their independent timing), and yes, the cell phone towers all would have gone down in the DC area... but the 11 o'clock news would have had their Y2K dreams come true.

It actually would have been a little fun for the smug east coast nannies to have their shorts pulled down on them for a few days too, it must be said. A little chaos in DC isn't the worst thing i can think of.

Of course, this wouldn't have happened. The GPS community played right into LightSquared's hands. Their chief counsel, a former FCC lawyer, knew this and well... here we are now.

In the end, the GPS community was united, but stupid, and a lot of people wasted a lot of time proving that physics works.

Company buys spectrum for business model A, with limits on it, cheap. Company realizes they can't make a profit on business model A, tries to have limits removed. Company fails to get limits removed. Company sues FCC and complains to lawmakers that FCC is not fair (for not changing the rules to suit them). Company declares bankruptcy. Company get's backers in government to make the FCC give them government reserved spectrum (for you know, defense purposes) which is prime spectrum and very expensive in exchange for garbage spectrum they bought, so they don't go out of business. Failed businessmen get paid huge paychecks, give part to politicians.

Free Market :Company buys spectrum for business model A, with limits on it, cheap. Company realizes they can't make a profit on business model A, tries to have limits removed. Company fails to get limits removed. Company goes bankrupt. Company assets are sold off. New Company buys up components of original company, bids on new spectrum that will work, uses original company's tech to make system work. New Company profits. Successful businessmen make lots of money. Failed businessmen end up working for successful businessmen.

You're oversimplifying things in an absurd way that right-wingers often do when talking about "the free market".

In a truly free market there wouldn't be any FCC or spectrum licensing to start with and what you'd have is a very scrambled radio spectrum usage with everyone trying to overpower everyone else on the most useful frequencies.

If your "free market" has any form of government intervention whatsoever, and that means even courts to enforce contracts, too, then you're really a regulation oriented socialist and we're just arguing levels of government control. Don't bother trying to convince yourself otherwise.

I would only support this if LightSquared pays for the spectrum. They also must give back the spectrum they cannot use because the satellite communication industry certainly can. I would even argue that the spectrum they will NEVER use because they cannot even afford to turn the lights on should be simply given back to the government.

I really wish the government would require ALL owners of spectrum to implement a service that uses spectrum or simply give it back within 5 years. In other words the spectrum itself would have a 5 year lifespan, if you use it super, otherwise give it back.

Verizon and AT&T would of course be banned from said purchase unless the outline a plan to provide a wireless broadband service to the entire country within 5 years.

The entire premise of companies buying exclusive right to radio spectrum is so fundamentally flawed that no matter how much we want more wireless competition, we're going to get nothing but bad news out of this industry for the foreseeable future.

More crony capitalism at work, this time of the 'bipartisan' sort. Lightsquared got what it paid for: space-to-earth spectrum. It tried to cheat and use that spectrum for earth-bound uses, posing a serious threat to GPS use. There's no reason for anyone to feel sorry for them.

Nothing Lightsquared has done justifies giving them military spectrum. If the military needs or will need it (highly likely considering how warfighting is changing), it shouldn't be given up. If the military doesn't need it, then it should be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

If Lightsquared execs weren't so clueless, they'd realize that they could find a legitimate use for that spectrum. It could be used to broadcast to mobile devices. That could include nationwide paging/messaging and documents (i.e. newspaper subscriptions) that don't need to be sent one at a time.

But I suspect it's too late for them to get into that. They blew their money on an idea that never made sense. Now they have to face the (bankruptcy) music. And given the innate folly of their scheme, there's little reason to feel sorry for those they owe money.

The FCC is in essence putting out a fire they are responsible for starting, as a result of not doing the job they exist to do as a regulatory body.

No.

FCC sold the spectrum with the explicit condition Lightsquared didn't interfere with GPS. Lightsquared said "sure, no problem, we can totally do that" while everyone at the Spectrum office rolled their eyes. You don't get to trade your bicycle for someone else's truck because you were too dumb to realize you couldn't run a appliance delivery service with it.

First of all, there is no financial bailout involved. This is a technology issue primarily. LightSquared is not requesting a financial bailout...

They're asking for much more expensive and lucrative spectrum than what they paid for. Sounds like a financial bailout to me.

Quote:

LightSquared bought and paid for spectrum, which they had the right to use commercially.

They bought and paid for a license to the spectrum, which they're allowed to use commercially according to the FCC guidelines that govern it. Their business plan requires using it in ways that violate the license, and they couldn't demonstrate that they could sufficiently confine the issues of their usage to just devices within their own spectrum to get a full FCC waiver.

Quote:

They followed the process to acquire FCC approval.

Except the part that requires non-interference with devices on neighboring bands. This is a problem they cannot work around.

Quote:

The FCC had not done it's diligence to monitor and regulate the use of the spectrum that enables GPS. GPS device makers did not stay within the specified parameters of that spectrum's regulations.

This is pure bullshit. The GPS devices "stay within the specified parameters of their spectrum's regulations." But Lightsquared's signal will overpower it for most devices, especially those requiring high precision or portability. The problem is that LS wants to broadcast with so much power that receviers on neighboring bands can't help but pick it up. The slice of spectrum they bought was never intended for this purpose, it was set aside for low-power broadcasts that don't cause much interference.

Quote:

The cost to taxpayers for the DoD to update their guidance technology, to be in compliance with actual GPS spectrum parameters would simply be too great.

There is no feasible way to "upgrade" their technology to filter out LS's signals because LS's signals are too powerful. The DoD hasn't been non-compliant. LS is asking for an exception so THEY can be non-compliant. You have it exactly backwards.

All of this has been hashed out three dozen times in all the previous LS story threads here on Ars. Nobody is going to buy this bullshit about it being the GPS makers' fault. You shouldn't either.

Would any trade really be fair? Light Squared wants spectrum for a use that is fundamentally different from the spectrum they currently own. Sure we all want more competition in the Telco sector and this could help, but at what cost? Maybe if the DoD has spectrum laying around that is not used and they actually want to trade, but why is it the FCC's responsibility to research and broker the deal? That is Light Squared's responsibility in my opinion.

Basically we are bailing out another big company because they didn't plan ahead thoroughly enough. I say let them do their own homework or let them fail.

First of all, there is no financial bailout involved. This is a technology issue primarily. LightSquared is not requesting a financial bailout, nor have the officially declared bankruptcy.

That spectrum, it has monetary value. So yes, they are requesting to be compensated with something that has a nominal dollar value. That's why the FCC auctions spectrum off, genius - for the moneys. But you knew that.

As for this:

BlondeFurious wrote:

Solution? The FCC requests the DoD exchange spectrum with LightSquared. This has a lot of advantages:

1. The DoD gets the spectrum neighboring GPS, which means they can expand GPS capabilities with better spectrum, without interfering with existing devices, and without significant and expensive hardware infrastructure upgrades.2. The FCC saves face by solving a problem they're responsible for creating.3. LightSquared can regroup and complete their commercial plans, avoiding full bankruptcy and meeting their financial obligations to investors.

How about no? If the DoD doesn't need that spectrum, it should be auctioned off and whatever is left of LightSquared should be free to bid on it *as every other private company is*. You don't get cutsies because you fobbed up your last business plan.

If the DoD says they need the spectrum (for real-time data intensive future combat networks), well, then you can kindly piss off. Defense is one of those things that's actually in the Constitution.

LightSquared bought and paid for spectrum, which they had the right to use commercially. They invested a lot of money in R&D and infrastructure development. They followed the process to acquire FCC approval. The FCC had not done it's diligence to monitor and regulate the use of the spectrum that enables GPS. GPS device makers did not stay within the specified parameters of that spectrum's regulations. As a result, the spectrum LightSquared acquired interfered with GPS.

Not quite right. LightSquared bought and paid for satellite spectrum. That would have been fine but it didn't pan out. They tried to use the same spectrum for terrestrial use and got spanked. That is LightSqured's fault 100%. Anyone with a passing interest in RF propagation could and did call BS on this usage. We all saw that fail coming.

BlondeFurious wrote:

The chief reason is the DoD relies heavily on GPS technology all around the world.

Um... I might argue that it's not just the DoD that relies heavily on GPS. I'm pretty sure the FAA had some qualms about this as well. One might go as far as to say the Entire World relies heavily on GPS technology.

BlondeFurious wrote:

The FCC is in essence putting out a fire they are responsible for starting, as a result of not doing the job they exist to do as a regulatory body.

How is this the case? LightSquared bought satellite spectrum. Failing to be able to use because someone didn't do their research is not the FCCs fault. They turned around and tried to use the spectrum using terrestrial power levels but that wouldn't work for the side transmissions would overpower the relatively weak signals that the adjacent GPS bands use.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of the post as it repeats itself.

I believe the FCC lacks any jurisdiction over DOD use of radio frequency bands, so any such request from the FCC to the DOD would be just that, a request, that could be ignored or denied with no explanation.

They did their homework - they figured that when they gave the DNC all that money, they'd get something for it. We're now seeing the fruit of that labor.

to be honest, we all were confused when we saw their plan for the first time in 2010... not with the science (that was settled with first lab tests - this was not going to work) The confusion was: What is the plan? (the Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan /hfro)

What i mean is - put aside all the testing, and just go with what their plan was:"We are going to broadcast a gazillion times louder than GPS next to recievers who are intentionally taking in as much RF as possible to get more accuracy because the neighbors there a week ago were all only about 10 dB higher). This will knock every single GPS receiver off the air at some distance - be it 30m or 27km."

Fine. okay. How the hell is that going to work? Just turn on the towers (for example, three towers within ~600m of the White House...two about 2000m away from Air Force One's hangar, etc.) and knock out all of the GPS along the entire DC Metro area.

Ta da? (insert musical fanfare here)

Was it supposed to be some kind of magic trick? Everyone was going to be super happy they got LSQ-based 4G cell phones, but okay with all of their TomToms and Garmins taking a shit, all the other cell systems would have gone down (all cell phone towers use GPS as primary timing), Baltimore harbor navigation being halted?

Many strenuously argued that the most sucessful way to stop LightSquared was to let them proceed. Me included. Back off from all the arguing and just let them go. And when they turned on the system, yes, airliners would have lost GPS, and no, no one would have been able to use their in-car systems, and yes, all of the networks would have gone down (they use True Time receivers for their independent timing), and yes, the cell phone towers all would have gone down in the DC area... but the 11 o'clock news would have had their Y2K dreams come true.

It actually would have been a little fun for the smug east coast nannies to have their shorts pulled down on them for a few days too, it must be said. A little chaos in DC isn't the worst thing i can think of.

Of course, this wouldn't have happened. The GPS community played right into LightSquared's hands. Their chief counsel, a former FCC lawyer, knew this and well... here we are now.

In the end, the GPS community was united, but stupid, and a lot of people wasted a lot of time proving that physics works.

He basically argued that it would be worth a temporary disruption of GPS to have a clear demonstration of just how bad LS's plan would have been, instead of depending on small-scale tests that don't impact anybody in the real world.

You wrote "You're oversimplifying things in an absurd way that right-wingers often do when talking about "the free market".

In a truly free market there wouldn't be any FCC or spectrum licensing to start with and what you'd have is a very scrambled radio spectrum usage with everyone trying to overpower everyone else on the most useful frequencies."

Whose being absurd here, If you what a free market is then you would know that a free market doesn't mean free of government regulation, but a market free of the government placeing one business of above another, or having a government controlled business in the market. For example if the government took over the comunications business, or said one business would run all comunications then your post might have some merit. I'm so tired of left verses right, instead it should be educated people having a constructive conversation; I'm starting to believe that is no longer possible. A free market is simple, and regulations should be put in place to provide consumer protections without interfering with the normal day to day operations of the market. i.e GM should have failed, Light Squared should fail, and any company that can't stand on it's own merits should fail, becuase another company will step in and do what the other company couldn't. Government has no business in deciding winners and losers, or bailing companies out beucase that is a violation of the free market. And if you need some history it's the free market that made this country the most powerful and prosperous country in the world.

If you what a free market is then you would know that a free market doesn't mean free of government regulation, but a market free of the government placeing one business of above another, or having a government controlled business in the market

Any regulation ends up giving someone an advantage, whether it's the first entity in existence advantage (giving old companies the ability to buy up and monopolize/squat on resources like spectrum) or regulation that forces those in positions of power to give up power for the sake of "competition" neither way is "free market".

Free market is just a right-wing buzzword. Fact of the matter is pretty much no one espousing "free markets" and lashing out at regulations would actually like the result of their agenda brought to complete fruition.

He basically argued that it would be worth a temporary disruption of GPS to have a clear demonstration of just how bad LS's plan would have been, instead of depending on small-scale tests that don't impact anybody in the real world.

Omg, that would have been trolling on an EPIC scale.

"LOL, I broke your civilization for teh lulz! Oh, and money. Which I now just lost, thanks to the miracle of class-action lawsuits!"

Satellite spectrum can be used terrestrially. XM has ground based transmitters in urban areas.

XM and Sirius are effectively the same service thanks to the merger. XM has the better infrastructure. LS should take over the Sirius spectrum, upgrading those subscribers to XM hardware.

Converting military spectrum to commercial use isn't free. Investigate the 1700MHz conversion. All the point to point military gear had to be moved to new frequencies. Basically it isn't like the DoD has spectrum with no users. They have to move to other DoD spectrum.

No. Just no. LightSquared knew from day 1 that spectrum would never work for terrestrial communications. Did they not read the FCC's conditional waiver requirements closely enough? Or did they wish away what they didn't want to see? Either way, tough titty. No F'ing way does LightSquared get corpfare just because they're in hock for billions after pursuing a failed business plan.

Sure, a nationwide terrestrial broadband network using suitable spectrum would be great. LightSquared has thoroughly demonstrated they're not the company to do it.

Sorry, but you know good and well your entire argument is BS. The spectrum that LightSquared purchased was approved for one specific purpose, and only that purpose. They knew it in advance, they were told by MANY folks that it was not possible to do without interfering with GPS and other critical uses in nearby spectrum, and LightSquared said "Oh, we have that figured out!". Their "figured out" is buying astroturfers like you and various and sundry congresscritters to steal spectrum that is allocated to the DoD and will be needed in the coming years to give as a gift to a company that lied every step of the way.

No deal. And LightSquared needs to not be paying you for such a poor job of hiding your Astroturfing.

He basically argued that it would be worth a temporary disruption of GPS to have a clear demonstration of just how bad LS's plan would have been, instead of depending on small-scale tests that don't impact anybody in the real world.

I was in DC last December when they were trying it out (8 hour shifts a couple times). Darn near made it impossible for a non-DC resident to travel in the city, since I didn't know how to get places, and the GPS would only work AT BEST for 30 seconds or so, before it would expand the uncertainty area to the MidAtlantic ocean, then jump to somewhere in Kansas, then the Ukraine, then somewhere near Richmond, then DC, then back to the ocean... street level navigation was a no-go.

IOW, huge, huge interference with the devices. And that was with three different GPS device types (four actual GPSes).

You wrote "You're oversimplifying things in an absurd way that right-wingers often do when talking about "the free market".

In a truly free market there wouldn't be any FCC or spectrum licensing to start with and what you'd have is a very scrambled radio spectrum usage with everyone trying to overpower everyone else on the most useful frequencies."

Whose being absurd here, If you what a free market is then you would know that a free market doesn't mean free of government regulation, but a market free of the government placeing one business of above another, or having a government controlled business in the market. For example if the government took over the comunications business, or said one business would run all comunications then your post might have some merit. I'm so tired of left verses right, instead it should be educated people having a constructive conversation; I'm starting to believe that is no longer possible. A free market is simple, and regulations should be put in place to provide consumer protections without interfering with the normal day to day operations of the market. i.e GM should have failed, Light Squared should fail, and any company that can't stand on it's own merits should fail, becuase another company will step in and do what the other company couldn't. Government has no business in deciding winners and losers, or bailing companies out beucase that is a violation of the free market. And if you need some history it's the free market that made this country the most powerful and prosperous country in the world.

"A free market is simple" and "regulations should be put in place to provide..." don't go together. The only example of any spectrum in the modern world acting in an even rudimentary free market environment is the 2.4ghz/5ghz spectrum where all of our wifi/bluetooth/unlicensed wireless microphones reside, because you don't have to buy a license from the government to use that spectrum.

You are not, in any way, proposing a free market. You are proposing that the losers in a regulated market (Light Squared) should accept bankruptcy, because the government picked against them. GM should have failed, because people didn't buy their vehicles. Light Squared never got the chance to sell their products in the first place, because burdensome regulation prevented them from selling their products. That's not a shining example of the free market in action. That's quite literally the opposite of the free market in action.

I don't really have a dog in this race. Generally speaking, I'm OK with the government constricting the free market by regulating spectrum, given that doing so should, theoretically, result in better wireless service. The idea that they are regulating spectrum by giving it to companies who are not using it and are instead sitting on the spectrum to force higher prices is less kosher in my books. In my opinion, any regulation of this sort should be put in the hands of a utility or non-profit, who can then rent it out or otherwise allocate the spectrum in such a way as to prevent (by force) companies from acting monopolistically. But what do I know?